Stephen Batchelor comes in for a lot of stick in Buddhist circles. This is pretty much par for the course - any human being who strays from any given "orthodoxy" will attract the wrath of those who need the structures of creed and doctrine to feel justified.
As I see it he remains true to the Dharma. Remains true to the Pali Canon; in fact true to the whole range of Buddhist texts and scriptures, sutra's or whatever. True to the Dharma.
From the very earliest texts.....
"So you should you train yourself: “in the seen, there will be only the seen; in the heard, only the heard; in the sensed, only the sensed; in that of which I am conscious, only that of which I am conscious.” This is how you should train."
(UDĀNA)
Most want more. Will always want more. Will seek to justify whatever more they use to justify themselves by the descent into wars and inquisitions; greed, hatred and ignorance.
Stephen Batchelor begins his book "After Buddhism" with reference to one of the earliest records of the Buddha's own method of discourse:-
A well-known story recounts that Gotama — the Buddha — was once staying in Jeta’s Grove, his main center near the city of Sāvatthi, capital of the kingdom of Kosala. Many priests, wanderers, and ascetics were living nearby. They are described as people “of various beliefs and opinions, who supported themselves by promoting their different views.” The text enumerates the kinds of opinions they taught:
The world is eternal.
The world is not eternal.
The world is finite.
The world is not finite.
Body and soul are identical.
Body and soul are different.
The Buddha exists after death.
The Buddha does not exist after death.
The Buddha both exists and does not exist after death.
The Buddha neither exists nor does not exist after death.
They took these opinions seriously. “Only this is true,” they would insist. “Every other view is false!” As a result, they fell into endless arguments, “wounding each other with verbal darts, saying ‘The dharma is like this!’ ‘The dharma is not like that!’”
The Buddha commented that such people were blind. “They do not know what is of benefit and what is of harm,” he explained. “They do not understand what is and what is not the dharma.” He had no interest at all in their propositions. Unconcerned whether such views were true or false, he sought neither to affirm nor to reject them. “A proponent of the dharma,” he once observed, “does not dispute with anyone in the world.” Whenever a metaphysical claim of this kind was made, Gotama did not react by getting drawn in and taking sides. He remained keenly alert to the complexity of the whole picture without opting for one position over another.
Well, not taking a position is frowned upon by most.
What is your position?
No comments:
Post a Comment